Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Becker

Alan Becker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet

The sources listed here are almost all trivial pulications. Half of them in the article are primary (YouTube, Kickstarter, etc.), while the rest of them are unreliable or unkown. I initally thought that the Huffington Post UK source listed there had decent covarage, but it was just trivial coverage again. The only Forbes source in the article is by a contributor, and notability can't be established there as per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sparkl^talk 23:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sparkl^talk 23:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 00:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I worked on the article a bit but it still needs improvement. While it needs more work, that does not negate the fact that the subject was featured in the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post UK, both of which are significant coverage, plus coverage in Forbes, Huffington Post UK and Smithsonian magazine. Passes
  WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabre Norris

Sabre Norris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable references given, or indication of notability. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Her big claim to fame is landing a 540? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for lack of notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:ATD. Cabrils (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets
  WP:NEXIST, notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per
  WP:BASIC.Jeni Wolf (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Sadovskiy

Pavel Sadovskiy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability Ficaia (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No such coverage is found in the article and I was unable in finding any during a Google search, including with the Belarusian and Russian spelling of his name. Alvaldi (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails GNG and seemingly the old NFOOTBALL as well. GiantSnowman 21:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to the references the topic is not meeting
  WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - searching in Russian and Belarusian failed to yield anything substantial Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NFOOTY.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ethiopian Beauty Queens

Ethiopian Beauty Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources Ficaia (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Beauty pageants. Ficaia (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unable to find any significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Some mentions in unreliable sources / blogs, but nothing indicating true notability. Does not meet
  WP:GNG. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

True Lies (song)

True Lies (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one source is actually talking about the subject, and it's only for approximately a sentence-and-a-half. That could easily be merged into the album's article (although that doesn't look much better). Nothing else here proves notability. Made a PROD for this that was removed, similar PROD for Shame About That was also removed but that article was converted to a redirect to the album, I would support that move here as well. QuietHere (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Charted on one of Billboard's charts. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From

  national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" Aside from the obvious "may be notable" point, I'd also like to emphasise the use of plural "charts", implying a want for multiple. This song only appeared on one chart (Hot Country Songs) and (in my opinion) didn't even have a very impressive chart run, only lasting for six weeks and peaking at a position that no longer exists on the chart (Peaked at #59, chart only has 50 positions per WP). Unless there is missing chart data then that is definitely not enough for me, and even still more chart data wouldn't make up for the lack of coverage elsewhere. QuietHere (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Footnote: Shame About That has been unredirected, will be starting an AFD for that momentarily. QuietHere (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, charted single on Billboard, received media attention both before and after the fact for being the debut of a notable performer. The sources in the article pass
  WP:SIGCOV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, agree with @Donaldd23: It has charted on Billboard and you're are forgetting the critique from No Depression. That is a credible source from credible journalist. Like I said with Sara's other singles, this song exemplifies her early career persona as a traditionally-minded country vocalist. The reader needs examples of notable songs that further explain this to better understand her career. It also one of Evans's self-penned tracks. This is an important descriptor to her as an artist indicating that she has several skill sets adding to her credibility as an artist. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The No Depression review doesn't specifically mention this song by name though. The "(such as 'True Lies')" excerpt in the WP article is built on an assumption that that is one of the songs being referred to, and that's gotta be a solid example of

  WP:OR. If the source isn't literally talking about this song, you can't just apply what it's saying as you please. And again, it charted on one chart and didn't even peak in the top 50 there. That argument is flying in the face of WP policy. QuietHere (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • As of now the consensus appears to not be in your favor. Your opinion is not the only one being inputted here. I will keep looking for information in the mean time to further prove the point this article makes. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This kind of back-and-forth discussion about sources is normal and is how information about the article is brought to light. AFD is not a contest where one "side" wins. Stick to the policies and the facts and the disposition of the article should become clear. Lamona (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I found another article explaining why Evans believed this song did not chart higher on the Billboard chart. This source is from Country Standard Time, a reputable country music site written by journalists and writers. I added this to article. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: I've posed

WT:SONGS, hoping to clear up my own apparent confusion at some of the policy in question. I'd prefer to see a consensus established there before this closes, if that's allowed, as it may have a significant effect on this AFD's outcome. Thank you for your patience. QuietHere (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete
  WP:NSONGS is clear that charting alone is not enough to meet notability criteria. None of the sources discuss the song at length, and that is what is required for notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Meets
  WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Sara Evans - The highest chart position this song reached was 59. The #1 source here does not mention this particular song, and really should be removed. The article says that the song got positive reviews, but only one is cited, and the Country Standard Time article talks about how disappointing the sales were for the album, and states: "The first single, "True Lies," released in March 1997, only reached 59, while a third single, the more uptempo "Shame About That," did slightly worse." This does make it seem that the song was not successful. So far I haven't found in depth RS about this song. Lamona (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevem Lopes Botelho

Kevem Lopes Botelho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kevem Lopes Botelho

This

Previously deleted on an expired PROD as not satisfying

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails GNG and seemingly the old NFOOTBALL as well. GiantSnowman 21:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails
  WP:NFOOTY.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Subdomain#Server cluster. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WWW2

WWW2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about how "www2" can be used as an alternative to "www" as a hostname for a web server. Seriously, that's it. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Subdomain#Server cluster I wasn't able to find enough sources indicating that this subdomain is notable in and of itself, but the page gets enough traffic (5800 views in the last 30 days) that a redirect may be useful. Sunmist (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the article has no sources and in its current state must be deleted. However, I think that there is some potential for expansion of the article with more sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite one such source, because I'd be amazed to see such a barmy approach to this subject. This is just a systematic procedure of adding …1, …2, …3, and so forth to names, and no-one sensible documents this in terms of the individual names generated in this way. They're examples, at best. Uncle G (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Completely unsourced shallow observation. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguation to
  WWII As many ordinary users will probably confuse concepts like "world wide web", "web", and "internet", and in case someone typed an extra w when typing WW2. C933103 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Subdomain The title is not notable. Jeni Wolf (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested, this is nothing more than a mirror. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party of Florida

Reform Party of Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. The party achieved no electoral success, with its only notable performances being in races with no major-party opposition. Most other coverage revolves wholly around federal campaigns related to the federal party exclusively. Fails to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Would like to see an
  Independence Party of Minnesota, and Independent Party of Connecticut. It would be considered the parent article ( yet some want Wikipedia to grow beyond all wildest dreams, --or-- some just love creating new articles or turning red links blue, but it sometimes seems preferential to create an unassessed, stub, or start-class article instead of building a single far improved article. It might be of interest to find that the Modern Whig Party merged with the American Moderates Party and the American Party of South Carolina forming the Alliance Party. This is not mentioned in the Modern Whig Party article just that it ceased activities and became a think tank. My point is that sometimes fragmented articles would be better merged that would be a net positive for Wikipedia and certainly for readers' navigation. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability requirements, with no sources to demonstrate significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep My online searched found a few things, and notably, the article has her first and surname reversed! I added them in, and while I'm not good at ascertaining what is a reliable source in Ugandan and chess press, it seems like the following articles indicate notability.

1. https://kawowo.com/2017/01/09/i-was-the-best-in-2016-says-christine-namaganda/
2. https://www.ntv.co.ug/ug/news/sports/women-s-day-chess-christine-namaganda-wins-inaugural-tournament-3741656

If there is something about these sources that I don't know that indicates they are not reliable, please tell me and I'll be open minded to adjust my opinion, but based on what I see, she is notable. I would urge anyone trying to assess this themselves to also search for her with her correct name Christine Namaganda not Namaganda Christine. CT55555 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Kawowo Sports source above is
  WP:GNG. It's very well possible that there are more great sources. I went for the low hanging fruit. gidonb (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavol Piatka

Pavol Piatka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability from a google search: just databases Ficaia (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I found one source that could go towards GNG but otherwise just brief mentions in match reports. GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - large number of professional appearances and related coverage. GiantSnowman 21:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to link any of this "related content"? At present, no one has shown sigcov. Ficaia (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE - you need to comply with it. GiantSnowman 06:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

A google search turned up nothing but database entries. If you've found other sources, you should link them here. Ficaia (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GS. Another bad nom as the subject is a top-class footballer and referee with long experience in both roles. Article is a valid stub to be expanded in due course. As in several other cases, the nominator has failed to perform an adequate
  WP:BEFORE which is mandatory ahead of raising an AfD. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No Great Shaker, what makes you say they haven't performed and adequate BEFORE search? –dlthewave ☎ 12:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No
  WP:BEFORE search was attempted. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Notability is based on SIGCOV, not number of appearances, and I'm not seeing any. –dlthewave ☎ 12:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can only find trivial coverage of this former footballer/referee online (mostly match reports and database entries, plus the occasional whine about him missing a penalty or such). I don't see how
  WP:GNG can be met based on online search results, and this footballer played in the internet-area. Jogurney (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete: The only potentially
  WP:SIGCOV I could find is here. That said, I was unable to find much else outside of passing mentions which gives me cause for concern for subject's notability. However, I'm also cognizant that additional sourcing may exist in other languages (such as Slovak like the one I found) that may not be as easily discovered for me. GauchoDude (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashiqur Zaman

Ashiqur Zaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep He played in
  2022 ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup. He might have significant coverage in media if more effort in finding them is done. Human (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Had a look and couldn't find anything. Playing in a youth tournament doesn't make someone notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the updated
  WP:TOOSOON as the subject may well become notable in the future, but at the moment should likely be delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to List of Gazi Group representative cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SM Meherob

SM Meherob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep He played in
  2022 ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup. He might have significant coverage in media if more effort in finding them is done. Human (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Had a look and couldn't find anything. Playing in a youth tournament doesn't make someone notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the updated
  WP:TOOSOON as he may well become notable in the future, but at the moment should likely be a delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to List of Gazi Group representative cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Abdullah Al Mamun (cricketer, born 1990)

Abdullah Al Mamun (cricketer, born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rüdiger Hacker

Rüdiger Hacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Germany. J04n(talk page) 13:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror. We says IMDb is not reliable, we need to start actually acting like this is our view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that Hacker's roles aren't significant enough to satisfy
  evidence that Hacker is notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Soviet Union at the 1956 Winter Olympics. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Yakimov

Boris Yakimov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a database entry. Didn't win any medals. Ficaia (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per PRESERVE, etc. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 14:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We deicded that not all Olympians are notable. There is no good reason to have a redirect on every name of a person who competed in the Olympics either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Lugnuts. Redirects are cheap. Probably cheaper than "deleting" the page. There's no reason not to do it here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Blue Square Thing and Lugnuts. XtraJovial (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - For a redirect to make sense it has to be plausible that people searching for "Boris Yakimov" are looking for THIS Boris Yakimov. However a simple GBooks search shows that there are a significant number of other Boris Yakimovs that people may be searching for who are equally (non) notable. The most prominent of these appears to have been Soviet Trade representative to Cuba before becoming the President of SUDOIMPORT, a prominent state-owned Russian shipping company. FOARP (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as there's no indication anyone is looking for the Trade Rep/businessman instead of the Olympian. If that changes, a DAB can be created and the redirect updated. Star Mississippi 13:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no evidence that anyone is looking for this Olympian, nor is it plausible that people are necessarily looking for him and not for another Boris Yakimov, that's the entire point! FOARP (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Star Mississippi - seems to me a far more sensible analysis than any of the opposing arguments and much more in keeping with the tenor of WP:REDIRECT.Ingratis (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This page received an average number of 9 visits per month last year, all/nearly-all of which will have been webcrawlers/bots (~9 visits per month is the number of visits you would expect if no actual human visitors had loaded the page during that time). Who, exactly, is supposed to be searching for Boris Yakimov and looking for a bare mention of his name right at the bottom of this page and not some other Boris Yakimov? FOARP (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

István Bethlen (polo player)

István Bethlen (polo player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability; just database entries. I can only find sources on his father. Ficaia (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per G7.
  talk) 20:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Leroy Paul

Leroy Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability Ficaia (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article does need referencing improvement, but (a) the Canadian Football League is a top-level professional league which does constitute a valid notability claim, and (b) he was on the Grey Cup winning roster in 1983, which is an even more important reason why we should be keeping something. Note as well that a guy who was playing 40 years ago is not going to be readily sourceable to Google hits, and will have to have his referencing retrieved from archives like ProQuest or Newspapers.com — and indeed, I get 94 hits in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstream collection (which is even more impressive considering that in the early 1980s it basically only archives The Globe and Mail alone, with other newspapers starting to show up only later in the decade) and over 700 hits in Newspapers.com (which is where you have to go to find early 1980s coverage from most of the newspapers that start showing up in ProQuest five or ten years later), which means the coverage most certainly is there to improve it with. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearcat. As with several other cases, the OP has failed to perform BEFORE and has ignored or failed to understand significant facts in the article. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 15:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no evidence of notability? This person played not one, not two, not three, but six seasons (for a grand total of 77 games) in the CFL, the highest level in Canadian football there is (and probably the second-highest level of gridiron). Plus, I'm getting a lot of results on Newspapers.com, but I don't have the time to go through them all. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Crab Game so that some content may be utilized on that article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dani (game developer)

Dani (game developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jurta talk 07:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jurta talk 07:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't fail

WP:CREATIVE, considering he has major role "in co-creating a significant or well-known work" for example "Muck" and Crab Game. >>> Extorc.talk(); 08:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Crab Game, Not notable enough for his own page, but should fit as a section in his work.PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, his games have made top charts on game platforms like Steam and Speedrun.com and he has more than 3 Million subscribers on YouTube, has collaborated with big names like MrBeast and Dream and has pretty big reddit following. I doubt he is not notable enough.

  Some creators who have their pages but aren't as notable or are as notable as Dani.

  Alfie Deyes

  Danielle Jones (physician)

  Keith Hughes (historian)

  Melody Oliveria

  Jordindian >>> Extorc.talk(); 18:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  friendly Reminder that just because

  Other Stuff Exists does not mean this article is notable. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Even without that, what I'm saying is still the same, he is pretty notable based on the criterion I gave. Moreover since this deletion was nominated, I have expanded the page, perhaps you could have a look. >>> Extorc.talk 07:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability isnt based on popularity, if that were the case then every single youtuber with over 1k subs would have their own wikipedia article. Also looking at the added sources, They all appear to be minor mentions, 1 of them is just an alt url to his youtube video which was already cited. I really dont see how this article is notable. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability guidelines. Only Polygon has the high reliability on sourcing, but was only a passing mention and mostly talks about the Crab game just like other sources.
  talk) 12:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unless he was involved in Far Cry 6 and Assassin's Creed, I find nothing about him. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Crab Game As this is his only work that has a Wikipedia article, and a short section about how the creator and background information would likely be useful. Jumpytoo Talk 20:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Warwick

Louisa Warwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing for this article is mostly blogs and promotional pieces. I found many of the claims were not fully supported (for example, the list of brands she had modelled for, and her birth date, which did not appear in the archived version of the cited source, which was dated later than that cited). The article turned out to be heavily reliant on Thrive Global, which is blacklisted, apparently for being a churnalism vehicle with no editorial oversight. That source may be found archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20201203112748/https:// /stories/inside-influence-one-on-one-with-louisa-warwick/ (insert t_____g_____.com in the space between slashes). Performing a

• Whilst both articles were created roughly a year apart by Sumsphere (talk · contribs), they are not substantially the same. The edits by Louisawarwick1 (talk · contribs) seem fairly humdrum. Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For some background on the problems with certain WWW sites involving this subject and several others, by the way, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Markowski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilda Joelle Osborn, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Pierson. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Yngvadottir notes, such coverage of this individual that can be found in the mass media is of almost no merit as evidence for 'notability' in Wikipedia terms. The sources cited in the article are a ragbag collection of promotional fluff, and statements to the effect that Warwick does the things that models/'influencers' etc do. She doesn't appear to have done anything exceptional for someone in her chosen career. Or if she has, nobody seems to have written about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild Keep She's got an article she wrote in Forbes [2] and a mention in the New York Times [3], I think she just makes it for notability. She's featured in Maxim and mentioned by TMZ, which are reliable sources; I can't open Maxim at work, for obvious reasons, will review later for notability. Also find an interview from a local paper in 2009, can help build notability, about her going into modelling. [4]. A reliable mention in Digital Spy about her leaving the Top Model show [5]. I video interview with OK magazine of her via youtube (should be ok as it's from a notable source, posted from their account) [6]. She ran track in high school, competed in an event in Ireland, [7]. She also gave an interveiw in Medium, which isn't as reliable a source, but can at least be used to confirm the athletics claim [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per AndyTheGrump. Also given that Maxim does pay-for-coverage I wouldn't consider it an RS, and the Forbes article appears to have been through the Forbes Council program, which also involves publishing for a fee. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Forbes source is useless for notability. Firstly, it's not actually about her, just written by her. Secondly, it was published under the "Forbes Business Council" fee-for-publication scheme. Per
  WP:FORBESCON we consider them self-published works. AusLondonder (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete we lack the significant secondary sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Healing River

Healing River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real indication of notability, most of these sources seem to be associated with the film or Christian publications likely to promote such a film: does not indicate wider notability. QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I began creating this page yesterday, and have not finished entering info and sources. My bad -- I did not realize I was working in "real time" and that the page had already been published. I plan to finish entering info and sources shortly. OgHollow (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial creation has been completed, with the exception of a still-needed Accolades (awards) section. Thank you for your patience! OgHollow (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've done some cleanup and left notes on the article talk page about the sourcing and reasons for removal of some of the sourcing and content. Offhand there are only two usable sources, one is a local article about the film's premiere and the other is a review. It's not really enough to justify a keep on my end, but I'm hoping to find more coverage when I search. There's mention of awards, but most film awards aren't considered to be major enough to give notability on Wikipedia, so I'll consider those not major unless I see coverage for them while I search. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, the magazine was more of an article than a review, but I did find a review from the Dove Foundation and added that. So two articles and one review. Both of the articles are local-ish coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. This only has three usable sources to establish notability. Two of these fall within the bounds of local coverage, one is a review. It would be a keep if I had one more good source, preferably a review, but there's just not anything out there beyond what I found. If someone can find another good source I'm open to changing my mind. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete regretfully. It seems this movie sank without a ripple. Not opposed to re-creation if it eventually attracts sufficient coverage for notability.--Jahaza (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ester Nurumi Tri Wardoyo

Ester Nurumi Tri Wardoyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass the WP:NBAD. zoglophie 11:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Indonesia. zoglophie 11:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supercinema

Supercinema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Film, and Education. Justiyaya 09:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I did some work to this article before making this comment. It is briefly mentioned in LA Review of books, which doesn't add very much, but it is mentioned in the context of how it influenced a philosophy book by notable philosopher [Paul Virilo]]. Combined with another academic review, I say keep on the basis of
  WP:BK with the two non-trivial things being the other book and the academic paper. CT55555 (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Side note: We could probably justify an article for the author, he looks like he's likely notable in his own right. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You inspired me: William Brown (author) CT55555 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as has coverage in academic sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per the source available in the article. DMySon (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio R. Alvarez

Antonio R. Alvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attempts to find sources were moot; nothing of him seems to exist, and the current sources are "email correspondence" -- ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Cuba. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Cuba. Netherzone (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I haven't yet done a BEFORE search to see if any sourcing exists, so will hold off on !voting for now; but I noticed that the article creator's user name is the same as his wife's name listed in the article "infobox" table. There is a might be a
  WP:COI. Netherzone (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete I seem to be getting absolutely nothing for "Antonio R. Alvarez" in the more than 230 sources that I consult with a custom search engine, and Google gives me the Wikipedia page, and the Facebook and Instagram accounts for other people with the same name. Vexations (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for
  WP: GNG. Unreliable and not independent with email and wife in mind. NiklausGerard (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I can't find any reliable sources about the subject of this article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "email correspondence" as a ref is a first. This might even qualify for an
  WP:A7 speedy. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I've held off on this to research whether his company, Alvarez Conservation was notable (it's not), as a NYT article mentioned his business that worked to preserve documents damaged during the
  WP:TOOSOON but at this time he does not meet our criteria for GNG or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not notable, and the sources are awful being emails and naturalisation papers. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hafeez Mirza

Abdul Hafeez Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no sources used, and after finding nothing on google, I suggest this person is not notable for a Wikipedia article. -- ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The
  WP:BASIC/the GNG, which Mirza does not appear to pass: I searched in several relevant languages but was unable to find any sourcing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Aamir Naik

Aamir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archduke Stefan of Austria

Archduke Stefan of Austria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An essentially unsourced article about an ordinary person who apparently has an article because he holds a long-extinct (indeed, by now fictitious) title of nobility. Such titles do not confer notability, see

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 08:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Michigan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm opposed to the deletion of this biographical entry for Archduke Stefan of Austria, as it has historical interest for those interested in the history of the House of Hapsburg and the Hapsburg Empire.....M.C. O'Connor 76.24.137.110 (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How is someone born in 1932 relevant to the history of the Hapsburg Empire?

  Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  For those of us interested in the history of the Hapsburg Empire, it provides a connection for the present-day with the beginnings of the Empire in medieval times.....M.C.O'Connor76.24.137.110 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am interested enough in the history of the Hapsburg Empire to know that it finished in 1918.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The Empire finished in 1918, but the House of Hapsburg remains a valid link to past history, and remains of historical interest and relevance. Windemere2 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be one thing if he were the head of the house, but he wasn't.2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we need to rid Wikipedia of deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Deposed Monarchy information remains part of history, and is a link between the past and the present......M.C.O'Connor76.24.137.110 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. This is a vaguely sweet biography of an utterly ordinary person who, as far as I can tell, has never been subject of any coverage in any reliable sources whatsoever. --JBL (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject of the article remains of historical interest and relevance as a present-day representative of the House of Hapsburg, and a link to the past. Windemere2 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the subject was really a representative of the House of Hapsburg, rather than a normal US citizen just getting on with his life, and was a link to the past, then surely there would be some reliable sources, such as books, that have coverage of him? Please tell us about such sources, without which there is no way this article can be kept.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  While working as an executive at General Motors, he authored at least two books: Humans in Seats (1977) and The Creative Attitude (1960s). He coauthored : Mass and Weight Distribution in Cars (1969) and What Really Connects in Seating (1977). (All published by General Motors). He also authored Human Factors: Evaluation of Headlight Switching Systems (1974). He also has several technical papers on automobile safety and comfort published on SAE Technical Papers series. My own interest in him derives from his being a representative of the House of Hapsburg, but he's nonetheless a published author. Windemere2 (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And which of the criteria at

  WP:NAUTHOR does he meet? --JBL (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  'Any Biography' (part of the historical record of the House of Hapsburg), and perhaps also 'Creative professional'. Windemere2 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What this needs are independent sources that write about him, not sources that he wrote himself.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Apparently you did not understand the question, so let me ask it again. You asserted that, as a published author, he is notable. There are tens of thousands of published authors who are not notable, and about whom articles do not and never will exist. The guideline

  WP:NAUTHOR to which I linked gives four criteria that someone could pass to achieve notability as an author. I asked you to identify which of those criteria he meets. Observe that answering this question requires evidence, not repetition of your feelings about members of the House of Hapsburg. (For example: if two of the books he wrote were each the subject of multiple book reviews in the automotive press, that would be evidence that he might pass point 3. And if you were to produce evidence that such reviews existed, I would seriously consider changing my !vote.) JBL (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Stefan Habsburg is mentioned in the book "Of Firebirds and Moonmen" by Norman James, 2007. The book is for sale on Amazon and can be accessed on Amazon by googling 'Of Firebirds and Moonmen'. The book apparently deals with the design and development of the Firebird automobile. There are several reviews of the book on Amazon.

  The book is also reviewed on the automotive design website 'Dean's Garage'. That review can be accessed by googling 'Stefan Habsburg Dean's Garage' or 'Of Firebirds and Moonmen Part One'. Here's an excerpt from the book that is reprinted in that review: "... the studio was set up with two designers, Stefan Habsburg, a graduate of MIT who's specialty was mechanical and system design..." Windemere2 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When you continue reading down through that lengthy excerpt, he's mentioned multiple more times. Windemere2 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But that book is not a reliable source, because it is self-published via

  Phil Bridger (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Xlibris has an article on Wikipedia, that doesn't mention anything about it being considered an unreliable source for published information. If it's an unreliable source for published information, why isn't that stated on its Wikipedia article ? It would seem to be relevant and important information. Windemere2 (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears to have a good reputation as a book-publishing company. Windemere2 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are book-reviews that appear on the Amazon site considered reliable sources ? Is Dean's Garage, a well-respected automotive website, a reliable source ? Are all books published by Xlibris automatically considered unreliable sources of information ? Windemere2 (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The first four words of the Wikipedia article about

  Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The book is also reviewed on the Barnes and Noble site. In the Overview, it states "The design of the Firebird III is the heart of the book and is its reason for existing. AS the last surviving member of the four principals in its design (Harley Earl, Bob McClean, and Stefan Habsburg being the others), the author feels obligated to assure that the story behind those closed studio doors is told....Of Firebirds and Moonmen is heavily documented with photographs, illustrations and graphics, which were prepared at General Motors as proposal and contract deliverables..." This Overview can be accessed by googling ' Barnes and Noble Overview Of Firebirds and Moonmen'

  Are all user-generated sites considered unreliable sources ? The book also has a review on Goodreads, and a multitude of other user-generated book-review sites. Windemere2 (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See

  Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  To the best of my knowledge, the Overview statement on the Barnes and Noble site isn't user-generated, but rather reflects Barnes and Noble itself. 76.24.137.110 (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't really matter whether the Barnes and Noble overview is reliable or not, because it only gives the subject the barest of bare mentions in a list in parentheses without saying anything about him other than that he was one of this team. The book itself is definitely self-published.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete. Very barebones article with little notability.2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:67 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much of a dispute here. If he was notable, you would expect sources to be apparent. They're not apparent because he isn't notable. AusLondonder (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are lots of sources. Some people would just rather get rid of this article than to look for them. From the moment of his birth, he was the subject of newspaper coverage. This continued throughout his life even in the United States. I'll keep adding other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcferran (talk • contribs)

  None of the sources you've added so far is even vaguely in the vicinity of what

  WP:GNG requests. The actual problem here is that the people who write these articles have no interest in what an encyclopedia is. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Note I have now shown that Stefan's birth, baptism, marriage, birth of first son, and death were the topic of articles published in major newspapers in Vienna, Boston, New York, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archduke Leopold Franz of Austria

Archduke Leopold Franz of Austria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same issue as in

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 08:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Germany. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, only genealogical information, no indication of notability (and I couldn't find anything in-depth by searching). Not by itself a reason for deletion, but the article doesn't seem to include his legal name and title in Austria (probably something like Mr Leopold Franz Habsburg?) —Kusma (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm opposed to deleting this biographical article on Archduke Leopold Franz of Austria, as it has interest for those interested in the history of the House of Hapsburg, and the Hapsburg Empire.....M.C. O'Connor 76.24.137.110 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any connection to the Habsburg empire. —Kusma (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For those of us interested in the history of the Empire, it provides a connection between Medieval times with the present-day....M.C.O'Connor76.24.137.110 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They might apply for the head of the house, but he was at best, a head of a junior branch. 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would the article include information about his legal name in Austria? He was born in Germany, lived in Uruguay and the United States, and claimed to be the head of a grand ducal house in Italy. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I misunderstood. I thought he had Austrian citizenship. If he was German, I expect he was Mr von Habsburg. —Kusma (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more deposed monarchy cruft. He was born well after the monarchy ended.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Deposed Monarchy information is a link between the past and the present, and continues to be of historical interest and relevance.....M.C.O'Connor76.24.137.110 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain this article needs to be improved, not deleted. Archduke Leopold Franz was head of his house, and was referred to as such in reference books on the topic. The fact that some people don't like the topic and think that all material on that topic should be removed from Wikipedia is not an argument that should be considered. Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any reliable sources about Mr Habsburg that would confirm he meets the

  WP:GNG? —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I've added the citation for an obituary (not the paid type) in La Nazione (as well as several other sources). Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete consists purely of genealogical/family information sourced to a directory of European royal families (
  reliable source. It's also at least a little dubious for the article to refer to him as "Archduke Leopold Franz of Austria" since it admits that Austria hasn't recognised any such thing for over a hundred years. Hut 8.5 16:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Then modify the article to omit the 'Archduke' and 'Austria' references, and make it simply 'Leopold Franz of Hapsburg', because it still has historical validity, for those interested in the current state of the House of Hapsburg. Windemere2 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This historical validity here being

  that he is a descendant of notable people? JBL (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, and notable himself as well, as a representative of the historic House of Hapsburg. Windemere2 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  He is deceased, so he doesn't represent the current state.2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:67 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Being deceased doesn't mean he no longer represents the House of Hapsburg. Look at all the deceased individuals who have biographies on Wikipedia, and represent the institutions that they were once part of. This is reminiscent of the difference between nationality and ethnicity. Nationality represents the current citizenship of an individual. Ethnicity represents their biological and historical descent for as far back as it's traceable, and down to the present. Both are of interest and relevant to their contemporary descendants. Look at all the google references from the public asking "Are there any current descendants of the Hapsburgs ?" or " Is the House of Hapsbburg extinct ?" There is quite a bit of public interest in the current state of the House. Windemere2 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, not even for descendants of defunct royal families. If it is not possible to write an encyclopedic biography of someone, then there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about them, regardless of who googles what. -- JBL (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The argument that he represents the current state of the house, seems like a stretch as the current state would refer to its living members, of whom he is not one, so if anything, he would represent a former state of the house.2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have made some updates to the article, including an obituary from La Nazione, the main newspaper in Florence. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RetainI'm requesting that this article be retained. Windemere2 (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very little non-genealogical content.2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:67 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is factually incorrect. More than half of the content is non-genealogical. The genealogical content is appropriate for a prince who claimed (and was recognised) as Head of the House of Lorraine in Tuscany. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Only one paragraph doesn't have some sort of genealogical content. In any case, it needs to be established that the page meets Wikipedia:Notability (people).2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• He was not "recognized" as a prince, a recognized prince has a domain he controls, this person did not. Just being recognized as the top claimant to a title with no domain or power is of no meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure what's involved by "recognition". Not all princes/archdukes control a domain. 'Prince' or 'Archduke' can also be honorifics, or courtesy titles, or indicate a position in a family line of succession. Windemere2 (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The title "Archduke of Austria" is a specific, and fictitious, claim. "Indicating a position in a family line of succession" is precisely what

  WP:NOTINHERITED rules out. --JBL (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Then that would speak to revising the article rather than deleting it. 76.24.137.110 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Moreover, 'inherited notability' isn't necessarily the sama as 'a line of succession'. Windemere2 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The family was deposed and removed from power before his birth. There is no real title to hold. It is a fictious false title. People who hold fictitious false titles are not notable for such, period. He did not actual hold a recognized title within a recognized power. the family was deposed before his birth, thus this is deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a courtesy title or honorific. Windemere2 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A 'courtesy title' (see Wikipedia) is a title used by custom or courtesy. It especially applies to nobility. It might be comparable to an honorary college degree, although those come by award, rather than through custom. Windemere2 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It shouldn't be confused with a 'substantive title', which I think is the kind of title you're referring to above. However, the clarification could be added to the article that the title is 'courtesy' and not 'substantive'. Windemere2 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've no objection to "Archduke" being removed from the title of the article, and the fact that it is a courtesy title rather than a substantive (real) one, could be explained in the body of the article. Windemere2 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In Germany, "Prinz" is not a title, just a part of the surname of some people. —Kusma (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's right."Erzherzog von Osterreich, Prinz von Toskana" are part of the surname, as shown in the article. They aren't shown as titles. Windemere2 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Any source for that? In comparison, dewiki calls his grandfather de:Peter Ferdinand von Österreich-Toskana. —Kusma (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]